AS we come to the end of the year, it is worth the while to reflect on what the next few years could look like for Guyana as we prepare to join the few countries that have been fortunate to discover oil and use it as the path to economic development. From all indications, the immediate future could be a transformative period for our country. Already, many Guyanese are speculating that Guyana could be entering a period when we could well unlock the gates to the collective prosperity to which all ex-colonial countries aspire. It is indeed an overwhelming feeling for a country that is among the poorest in the Americas.
But as we have seen from the debates, the much-anticipated economic prosperity would not wipe away our decades of contentious politics, nor would it immediately solve our economic woes. To the contrary, one could conclude that the coming of oil would

exacerbate our divisive politics and that could have a negative impact on our capacity to successfully use the oil revenues to effect economic transformation. In this regard, the opposition should rethink its strategy of relentless negativity. One gets the impression that most of the time, the opposition is more concerned with scoring political points rather than helping to improve the situation.

Over the last year, there has been no shortage of advice from local and international experts on how to avoid the pitfalls that accompany oil discovery. Indeed, much of that advice comes against the backdrop of the vulnerability of our political economy and the perceived track record of the oil companies that are poised to dominate the industry. This is understandable, given the experiences of countries and the sense of nationalism that accompanies oil discovery—the old debate about the extent to which countries benefit from their resources. Suffice it to say that Guyana has in the past not satisfactorily negotiated the best deals for itself.

But even as we make that observation, we must strive for cooperation and consensus rather than confrontation with foreign investors. In this regard, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carl Greenidge, one of our premier economists was moved this past week to caution against overreaction against Exxon Mobil. The minister seems to suggest that such a stance is unhelpful. It is, of course, valuable advice from someone who is obviously schooled on these matters. While we must be forever vigilant, such vigilance should be balanced and constructive.

After initially deciding not to publicly release details of the contract with Exxon Mobil, the government changed course this past week. As it explained, notwithstanding its concerns about confidentiality clauses, the ultimate decision was guided by its commitment to transparency. But, ironically, just as critics were digesting this new development, the government announced that it had not informed the country that it had received a signing bonus from Exxon Mobil.

The opposition was quick to pounce on this development and not unexpectedly, suggested negative intent on the government’s part. The government has explained that the decision was not the result of any hidden agenda and that the announcement would have been part of the general revelation of the overall contract. In a sense, then, the government seems to be suggesting that it was guided by the same considerations that caused it to delay the public declaration of the contract. It should be noted that the opposition and other government critics have not revealed any explicit ulterior motives by the government for withholding the information.

Governments make mistakes all the time. Insofar as this matter is concerned, we feel it was a case of judgement rather than malicious intent. The government itself has suggested that much. This government has been in office for a mere 30 months or half of its designated five-year term. That is not a long time in the life of a government, especially one that succeeded a 23-year regime. As should be expected, it has made its fair share of errors. But these should not be translated into strident charges of bad governance. In the end, we undermine our own cause by reaching for partisan imperatives.